Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 337 U.S. 535 - Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.

Woods v. Interstate Realty Co.’s Empirical Analysis

337 U.S. 535 · 1949

Citation profile

1,300
cited by 1,300 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

608 federal appellate · 139 district · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,300 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. (1949), Hanna v. Plumer (1965)

608 federal appellate · 139 district · 71 state decisions — followed in 15 states

2980194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Cited together with Erie Co v. Tompkins · Angel v. Bullington · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & WareHouse Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,300 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “where a decision rests on two or more grounds, none can be relegated to the category of obiter dictum.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The York case was premised on the theory that a right which local law creates but which it does not supply with a remedy is no right at all for purposes of enforcement in a federal court in a diversity case: that where in such cases one is barred from recovery in the state court, he should likewise be barred in the federal court.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in effect, only another court of the State * * * .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.